238 réponses à ce sujet

[MisterDyslexo]

Moiaussi wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Akuze was half a decade before the events of the game. Cerberus only went rogue monthes before ME1.

Saren was doing how much before he was declared 'rogue?' Cerberus could easily have been operating outside orders for a long time before having gotten caught and punted.

The evidence from that quest series was that they were acting in a rogue fashion when it happened, and that the Alliance chain of command was effectively infiltrated by those more loyal to Cerberus than to the Alliance.

Saren hid evidence of his actions from the council. Such evidence is Anderson's testimony about his mission with him where Saren killed the civilians. Saren said that he was forced to do it by one of Anderson's mistake, and insinuated that Anderson wanted him to do it. He is basiaclly black ops, just like cerberus. they're both on the honour code because their main way of getting resources is from their superiors (Saren's sbeing Council, cerberus' being Alliance). Only where there is hard evidence of actions against the people who back them up are they declared rogue

[Moiaussi]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

The Alliance creating Cerberus, then getting infiltrated by Cerberus... Not as weird as it sounds, though. Plausible deniability rules.

The problem is that you can't distinguish one from another, when the same people are the Alliance during the business hours and Cerberus at night.

Take Adm. Hackett for example. Who is he? A Cerberus infiltrator, or an Alliance fleet admiral who condones Akuze?

Not so much 'then getting infiltrated' as there being officers, including high ranking officers who are sympathetic to Cerberus's goals before and after, but who don't get punted either due to rank, connections, or lack of evidence.

As for Hackett, where is the evidence he condones what was done on Akuze? Being an Admiral does not mean he is the only admiral, nor does it mean he is the top admiral. He supported Shep through that whole investigation, so there is no obvious reason to accuse him of collusion or treason.

[mosor]

Moiaussi wrote...

Arijharn wrote...

Reasons why the Citadel council aren't the good guys:

Completely academic. That is like saying Germany should have been cheered on in WWII because of various crimes and/or questionable acts of the British, French, Americans, or any other given nation at the time.

Lets see.

1. Genocide against Rachni
2. Uplifting a non advanced culture to use as shock troops against above race.
3. Biologocal warfare against the krogan.
4. Refusal to defend a council member species from genocide
5. Initiates first contact with a new species through a gun, assaumes everyone should know their laws and be punished severely.
6. Saren, a known racist and ruthless operator was considered the council's best sprectre

These are more than just questionable acts. Cerberus seems holy compared to these goofs.

Modifié par mosor, 01 septembre 2010 - 03:16 .

[MisterDyslexo]

mosor wrote...

Moiaussi wrote...

Arijharn wrote...

Reasons why the Citadel council aren't the good guys:

Completely academic. That is like saying Germany should have been cheered on in WWII because of various crimes and/or questionable acts of the British, French, Americans, or any other given nation at the time.

Lets see.

1. Genocide against Rachni
2. Uplifting a non advanced culture to use as shock troops against above race.
3. Biologocal warfare against the krogan.
4. Refusal to defend a council member species from genocide
5. Initiates first contact with a new species through a gun, assaumes everyone should know their laws and be punished severely.
6. Saren, a known racist and ruthless operator was considered the council's best sprectre

These are more than just questionable acts. Cerberus seems holy compared to these goofs.

now lets dispute each bullet
1. The rachni were never going to back down, so they did what they needed to survive. The rachni weren't looking to be conquerors, they were just looking for stuff to kill. Its as plain as that. Would you let them survive to avoid being a genocidist so that they could continue their own genocide against you? There is absolutly nothing wrong with what they did. As Mordin said "Extinction of Rachni unfortunate, but necessary"

2. Lack of foresight. I would call that a mistake and not an evil deed. The krogan were also given the chance to settle certain planets, but it was never enough. They kept invading other planets so they could continue to reproduce like rabbits on viagra.

3. True the genophage is biological warfare, it never did kill anything. Do you think a genophage would work against other countries in world war 2? No, because we didn't rely on the need to reproduce to keep the war going. The krogan did. Even if those stillborn baby krogan did live, they just would've been off to die in the war anyways. It saved the lives of millions, maybe billions of non-krogans.

4. You'll have to elaborate a little on that one

5. Turians patrols did that, not the council. The council never condoned any military action in the first contact war. In fact they ended it. A few patrols didn't do what they should've; communicate with the other species, especially when it turns out to be one that hasn't been recorded).

6. He got the job done. Remember, you're defending Cerberus, who basically is the same exact thing. Except with Saren, when he did a job, he did it with orders to not to secure dominance of a species, but because so-and-so reason, like "they're slavers." or "they're breaking the law"

[Moiaussi]

mosor wrote...

Completely academic. That is like saying Germany should have been cheered on in WWII because of various crimes and/or questionable acts of the British, French, Americans, or any other given nation at the time.

Way to miss the point entirely. An arguement can be made for condemning the Council, but that does not vindicate Cerberus.

Lets see.

1. Genocide against Rachni

Complete lack of communications or even ability to communicate, compounded by the Rachni being indoctrinated. There wasn't much in terms of options.

2. Uplifting a non advanced culture to use as shock troops against above race.

A race that gained a lot from that, and took the opportunity willingly.

3. Biologocal warfare against the krogan.

Technically not Council, in that the evidence we have is that even though the Salarians made the weapon, the Turians deployed it against orders. Even then it only stabilized Krogan populations rather than eliminated the Krogan. That constituted a second culture shock to the Krogan, but they were used to similar loss levels, just in battle or to the environment instead of at birth.

4. Refusal to defend a council member species from genocide

A council race that attempted to commit genocide themselves and only needed defending because they lost. Even if you don't count the Geth as sentient (which is really really difficult to argue at this stage), there is still the issue that the Quarians were guilty of both dangerous AI research and of potentially unleashing a new war to rival the Rachni war or Krogan uprising. There was a valid arguement for dropping the Quarian's status. If they had been given a new world, they might just have become new targets for the Geth.

5. Initiates first contact with a new species through a gun, assaumes everyone should know their laws and be punished severely.

That was a specificly Turian domestic issue, as evidenced by the Turians asking the Council for aid. When the Council intervened, they did so rationally, resulting eventually in Humanity becoming a Council race (not to mention saving all of civilization).

6. Saren, a known racist and ruthless operator was considered the council's best sprectre

The lack of oversight regarding Spectres was a major issue, as is the lack of independant investigation generally.

These are more than just questionable acts. Cerberus seems holy compared to these goofs.

Again, completely academic as none of those criticisms vindicates Cerberus at all. Two wrongs don't make a right. Also, most of those are much less wrong than you make them out to be. Oh and as for the Rachni, many of the very same voices now supporting Cerberus were criticizing saving the Queen in ME1.

Modifié par Moiaussi, 01 septembre 2010 - 03:38 .

[Zulu_DFA]

Moiaussi wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

The Alliance creating Cerberus, then getting infiltrated by Cerberus... Not as weird as it sounds, though. Plausible deniability rules.

The problem is that you can't distinguish one from another, when the same people are the Alliance during the business hours and Cerberus at night.

Take Adm. Hackett for example. Who is he? A Cerberus infiltrator, or an Alliance fleet admiral who condones Akuze?

Not so much 'then getting infiltrated' as there being officers, including high ranking officers who are sympathetic to Cerberus's goals before and after, but who don't get punted either due to rank, connections, or lack of evidence.

As for Hackett, where is the evidence he condones what was done on Akuze? Being an Admiral does not mean he is the only admiral, nor does it mean he is the top admiral. He supported Shep through that whole investigation, so there is no obvious reason to accuse him of collusion or treason.

It's an all level merger:

Cerberus does have many low-ranking moles (Cerberus operatives) in the Alliance, who don't even suspect, that Cerberus is (was) a part of it.

Many mid-ranking Alliance functionaries, who also don't know what Cerbrus is, or follow the "rogue" version, sympathize with Cerberus regardless, making it easy to actively recruit them (to be Cerberus agents), if need be.

And on the very top level:
The Systems Alliance was created by Earth's tycoons, government officals and top-ranking military. TIM used to be an "upper class" with some military experience around the 1st Contact War... Cerberus' primary front is the largest Earth's spacecraft manufacturing corp. I can see some common blood here.

As for Hackett, he is in command of the mightiest Human star fleet, so I bet he is a top admiral (if not the top admiral), unlike all the Rear Admirals you meet (Mikhailevich, Kahoku, Anderson). And when you're about to land on Ontarom - the planet you meet Cpl. Toombs, Hackett briefs you to give quite a circumlocutory version of the Akuze story (even if your Shepard is a Sole Survivor), and he is specific about how the scientists are the ones to be rescued here, and whoever is hunting them are the bad guys.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 01 septembre 2010 - 10:07 .

[mosor]

Moiaussi wrote...

Complete lack of communications or even ability to communicate, compounded by the Rachni being indoctrinated. There wasn't much in terms of options.

Of course there were.Decimate them enough and they stop. The chose not to stop the krogan. They wanted to make sure the Rachni threat was permenently ended by killing every last one of them. As a renegade player I agree with their decison. However it doesn't change the fact that they comitted genocide.

A race that gained a lot from that, and took the opportunity willingly.

Even with our modern experience we know how dangerous it is to give primitive societies modern weapons and technology. Fact is the krogan may have developed socially to be more co-operative if the council didn't interfeare with their society. On a smaller scale, it's like the effect of modern medicine on the thrid world. The population explosions is destabilizing their societies.

Technically not Council, in that the evidence we have is that even though the Salarians made the weapon, the Turians deployed it against orders. Even then it only stabilized Krogan populations rather than eliminated the Krogan. That constituted a second culture shock to the Krogan, but they were used to similar loss levels, just in battle or to the environment instead of at birth.

Nonsense. It's two of the council races. Even until recently with Mordin, they kept modifying it.  Regardless if it kills, or sterilizes, it's still a bioweapon. It's their solution to a mistake they made by uplifting the krogan.

A council race that attempted to commit genocide themselves and only needed defending because they lost. Even if you don't count the Geth as sentient (which is really really difficult to argue at this stage), there is still the issue that the Quarians were guilty of both dangerous AI research and of potentially unleashing a new war to rival the Rachni war or Krogan uprising. There was a valid arguement for dropping the Quarian's status. If they had been given a new world, they might just have become new targets for the Geth.

It's pretty clear the quarians were not intending to create an AI. That was an accident.  Regardless, council policy is to shut down AI's as soon as they discover them. That's why that AI on the citadel tries to kill you when you discover it in ME1. So there is really no excuse not to help the quarians other than it wasn't in council's interests. Not to mention they further screw over quarians by evicting them off worlds they try to settle becuase they first didn't ask permission. You'd think if the council was noble, they would help them out of humanitarian grounds.

That was a specificly Turian domestic issue, as evidenced by the Turians asking the Council for aid. When the Council intervened, they did so rationally, resulting eventually in Humanity becoming a Council race (not to mention saving all of civilization).

Turians are a council race, and therefore they represent the council. They were also following council law by firing.
Sure the asari being the diplomats they are, intervened, but it doesn't negate what the turians have done.

Again, completely academic as none of those criticisms vindicates Cerberus at all. Two wrongs don't make a right. Also, most of those are much less wrong than you make them out to be. Oh and as for the Rachni, many of the very same voices now supporting Cerberus were criticizing saving the Queen in ME1.

I don't say it vindicates cerberus. Just saying there is a double standard. People see the council as a paragon's utopia when it really isn't that different from cerberus. It's just one was run by aliens and the other by humans.

Modifié par mosor, 01 septembre 2010 - 04:29 .

[MisterDyslexo]

mosor wrote...



1.Of course there were.Decimate them enough and they stop. The chose not to stop the krogan. They wanted to make sure the Rachni threat was permanently ended by killing every last one of them. As a renegade player I agree with their decison. However it doesn't change the fact that they committed genocide.



2. It's pretty clear the quarians were not intending to create an AI. That was an accident.  Regardless, council policy is to shut down AI's as soon as they discover them. That's why that AI on the citadel tries to kill you when you discover it in ME1. So there is really no excuse not to help the quarians other than it wasn't in council's interests. Not to mention they further screw over quarians by evicting them off worlds they try to settle becuase they first didn't ask permission. You'd think if the council was noble, they would help them out of humanitarian grounds.



3. Turians are a council race, and therefore they represent the council. They were also following council law by firing. Sure the asari being the diplomats they are, intervened, but it doesn't negate what the turians have done.

1. I really don't understand how you can see anything wrong with the Rachni genocide. It is unfortunate that they had to be wiped out, but it had to be done. Who attacked first? Rachni. Why did they attack? Just to kill. When will they stop? When every member of the other species are dead. The rachni as a whole committed to a war of genocide (whether under indoctrination or not), and they would have never stopped. If the Council caught wind that they were indoctrinated (which we aren't sure they were. All we have to go on is the Rachni queen's word) then there might've been reason for pause and an effort to help save the species from extinction. But they didn't know it, so it is completely morally defensible

2. The quarians as a council race, one the most capable species of the galaxy, defied clear council law and created AI. Then they asked for help. If the geth could have caused problems for species other than the quarians, it would be proper to help. But the geth only posed a threat to the quarians. It isn't very kind, but it is what the quarians (as a majority, not a whole) deserved.

3. Thats like saying if a englishman kills a frenchman that england has declared war against France. The patrol doesn't represent the species, the councilor does. If the king of England declared war against France, then the representative of the people condoned it. If the turian councilor supported the conflict, that would've been very different. But none of the council members supported it, they all intervened. The turians admitted blame for it later, and willingly gave reparations to the humans

Modifié par MisterDyslexo, 01 septembre 2010 - 04:50 .

[Moiaussi]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

It's an all level merger:

Cerberus does have many low-ranking moles (Cerberus operatives) in the Alliance, who don't even suspect, that Cerberus is (was) a part of it.

Many mid-ranking Alliance functionaries, who also don't know what Cerbrus is, or follow the "rogue" verison, sympathize with Cerberus regardless, making it easy to actively recruit them (to be Cerberus agents), if need be.

And on the very top level:
The Systems Alliance was created by Earth's tycoons, government officals and top-ranking military. TIM used to be an "upper class" with some military experience around the 1st Contact War... Cerberus' primary front is the largest Earth's spacecraft manufacturing corp. I can see some common blood here.

As for Hackett, he is in command of the mightiest Human star fleet, so I bet he is a top admiral (if not the top admiral), unlike all the Rear Admirals you meet (Mikhailevich, Kahoku, Anderson). And when you're about to land on Ontarom - the planet you meet Cpl. Toombs, Hackett briefs you to give quite a circumlocutory version of the Akuze story (even if your Shepard is a Sole Survivor), and he is specific about how the scientists are the ones to be rescued here, and whoever is hunting them are the bad guys.

Interesting fiction, but it seems much more what you think it should be rather than backed up by any facts. The top admirial contacted Shep personally regarding individual lost ships or other such issues that would have been normal assignments for any scout frigate? Seems rather unlikely.

A merger implies that there were two entities that joined. In this case it was more of a spin-off. The Alliance divested itself of a failing division.

Do you have any actual evidence or references to back up your theories?

[Urazz]

Personally, I think Cerberus itself can potentially a good organization that can serve a role for Humanity much like the STG does for the Salarian government. But they aren't under any government control and is run by a completely ruthless man that has no considerations for other races at all.



Basically, I think Cerberus needs to be destroyed and a new organization built on it's ashes with some government oversight and someone with a better sense of morals than TiM running it like Miranda (finding someone with a better sense of morals than the TiM shouldn't be too hard.).

[Moiaussi]

mosor wrote

I don't say it vindicates cerberus. Just saying there is a double standard. People see the council as a paragon's utopia when it really isn't that different from cerberus. It's just one was run by aliens and the other by humans.

Who is saying the Council is utopia or innocent? This is not either/or. They can both be wrong!

Skipped the rest because it was off topic. Happy to respond to it if you want to post a separate thread regarding the Council. This one has been hijacked enough.

[Zulu_DFA]

Moiaussi wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

It's an all level merger:

Cerberus does have many low-ranking moles (Cerberus operatives) in the Alliance, who don't even suspect, that Cerberus is (was) a part of it.

Many mid-ranking Alliance functionaries, who also don't know what Cerbrus is, or follow the "rogue" version, sympathize with Cerberus regardless, making it easy to actively recruit them (to be Cerberus agents), if need be.

And on the very top level:
The Systems Alliance was created by Earth's tycoons, government officals and top-ranking military. TIM used to be an "upper class" with some military experience around the 1st Contact War... Cerberus' primary front is the largest Earth's spacecraft manufacturing corp. I can see some common blood here.

As for Hackett, he is in command of the mightiest Human star fleet, so I bet he is a top admiral (if not the top admiral), unlike all the Rear Admirals you meet (Mikhailevich, Kahoku, Anderson). And when you're about to land on Ontarom - the planet you meet Cpl. Toombs, Hackett briefs you to give quite a circumlocutory version of the Akuze story (even if your Shepard is a Sole Survivor), and he is specific about how the scientists are the ones to be rescued here, and whoever is hunting them are the bad guys.

Interesting fiction, but it seems much more what you think it should be rather than backed up by any facts.

Um, actually everything in that post is based on "facts", from the games and books. The only piece of "fiction" is my mentioning that maybe Cerbeus is not so rogue, as late Kahoku seemed to believe...

The top admirial contacted Shep personally regarding individual lost ships or other such issues that would have been normal assignments for any scout frigate? Seems rather unlikely.

The only instance really strange in that regard was the Luna mission. In other cases Hackett contacts you only when you are already in the star cluster, so you are the fastes option. Oh, there is another instance: once you're 80% renegade, Hackett contacts you and asks to deal with Lord Darrius, which turns out to be a ploy to terminate him without implicating the Alliance...

A merger implies that there were two entities that joined. In this case it was more of a spin-off. The Alliance divested itself of a failing division.

A failing division is usually dismantled, not divested of (to secretly continue its support via "private" contributions).

Do you have any actual evidence or references to back up your theories?

I can't prove that milk is white to a blind person. If you don't consider yourself blind, you may click here.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 01 septembre 2010 - 10:05 .

[didymos1120]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

I can't prove that milk is white to a blind person.

Sure you can.  It may take awhile, what with having to explain a few things about optics and how the visual system works, but I'm pretty sure it's doable.  Will they intuitively grasp the idea of "whiteness"?  Probably not, if they were never sighted to begin with.  Of course, if you want to go full-on pedantic, science can't prove anything, only provide explanations and evidence for those explanations, so technically you're right.

[Moiaussi]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Um, actually everything in that post is based on "facts", from the games and books. The only piece of "fiction" is my mentioning that maybe Cerbeus is not so rogue, as late Kahoku seemed to believe...

I haven't read the new book yet,  but your description seems somewhat at odds with what we learned in game in ME1, and with common sense. The concept that they were cast out of the Alliance but then infiltrated the Alliance subsequently seems unlikely.

The only instance really strange in that regard was the Luna mission. In other cases Hackett contacts you only when you are already in the star cluster, so you are the fastes option. Oh, there is another instance: once you're 80% renegade, Hackett contacts you and asks to deal with Lord Darrius, which turns out to be a ploy to terminate him without implicating the Alliance...

You missed my point. Why is the top admiral contacting you instead of someone lower in fleet command, or even instead of Anderson? It is like taking orders from the Secretary of the Navy instead of from the appropriate regional commander.

This is especially the case since Shep was a spectre and outside Alliance command stucture.

A failing division is usually dismantled, not divested of (to secretly continue its support via "private" contributions).

Failled espionage divisions are normally 'permenantly retired,'  but enough of this one managed to get enough distance/maintain enough connections to stay operative independantly.

I can't prove that milk is white to a blind person. If you don't consider yourself blind, you may ...

Ah, so your 'proof' is a thread in which you post more of your own speculation and seems to be an ideological rant against government. If you have blinded yourself with dogma, then you are right, there is no point in continuing this discussion.

Modifié par Moiaussi, 01 septembre 2010 - 07:52 .

[Zulu_DFA]

didymos1120 wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

I can't prove that milk is white to a blind person.

Sure you can.  It may take awhile, what with having to explain a few things about optics and how the visual system works, but I'm pretty sure it's doable.  Will they intuitively grasp the idea of "whiteness"?  Probably not, if they were never sighted to begin with.  Of course, if you want to go full-on pedantic, science can't prove anything, only provide explanations and evidence for those explanations, so technically you're right.

I think I better go full-on pedantic.

[Zulu_DFA]

Moiaussi wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Um, actually everything in that post is based on "facts", from the games and books. The only piece of "fiction" is my mentioning that maybe Cerbeus is not so rogue, as late Kahoku seemed to believe...

I haven't read the new book yet,  but your description seems somewhat at odds with what we learned in game in ME1, and with common sense. The concept that they were cast out of the Alliance but then infiltrated the Alliance subsequently seems unlikely.

Without spoiling much I can tell you, that in Retribution, Anderson thinks that the Alliance is so heavily "infiltrated" by Cerberus, that, even after all his years of dedicated and distinguished service, he can trust no one.

The only instance really strange in that regard was the Luna mission. In other cases Hackett contacts you only when you are already in the star cluster, so you are the fastes option. Oh, there is another instance: once you're 80% renegade, Hackett contacts you and asks to deal with Lord Darrius, which turns out to be a ploy to terminate him without implicating the Alliance...

You missed my point. Why is the top admiral contacting you instead of someone lower in fleet command, or even instead of Anderson? It is like taking orders from the Secretary of the Navy instead of from the appropriate regional commander.

This is especially the case since Shep was a spectre and outside Alliance command stucture.

Especially because Shepard is no longer in the Alliance command structure, it takes a higher ranking dude to contact him.

A failing division is usually dismantled, not divested of (to secretly continue its support via "private" contributions).

Failled espionage divisions are normally 'permenantly retired,'  but enough of this one managed to get enough distance/maintain enough connections to stay operative independantly.

Still, the Alliance is not known to take any active step against Cerberus. Even when Kahoku, who of his own accord went after Cerberus, and was killed, the Alliance declares that he died "of natural causes", instead of encouraging every citizen to keep vigil and report so much as faint smell of "terrorists" to the nearest lawman.

I can't prove that milk is white to a blind person. If you don't consider yourself blind, you may ...

Ah, so your 'proof' is a thread in which you post more of your own speculation and seems to be an ideological rant against government. If you have blinded yourself with dogma, then you are right, there is no point in continuing this discussion.

If you are interested, that thread contains a lot of "facts" and their interpretations, and not only mine. I'm not going to repost them all here. I also have nothing against the government in general, or its "Systems Alliance" version.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 01 septembre 2010 - 08:27 .

[Nightwriter]

I think people here have made some pretty good arguments.

The only thing I can really fault the Council for is not helping the quarians, which bugs me. Even then there are counter arguments. The quarians had broken galactic law, attempted genocide themselves, had stirred up a mess the Council didn't want to step in, etc.

That's just a government being a government. Every form of government will always make mistakes. To point out the Council's many errors is to point out that reality is imperfect, which is redundant. The point isn't that the Council is good, it's that they're the lesser evil, for they are subject to at least some checks and balances, whereas Cerberus is run by one very corrupt man whose morality (or lack thereof) is law.

Rachni? They had to.

Krogan? They had to.

For people who preach necessary actions and hard decisions, and just ruthlessness in general, the Cerberus supporters sure do a lot of squawking about these decisions.

[Zulu_DFA]

Nightwriter wrote...

For people who preach necessary actions and hard decisions, and just ruthlessness in general, the Cerberus supporters sure do a lot of squawking about these decisions.

It's not like we pity the Rachni or Krogans. It's like we point out that Ceberus has yet a long and glorious way to go before it can be reproached for really "hard decisions".

[Nightwriter]

Cerberus hasn't made any kind of hard decisions that deserve any kind of glory. Unless Shepard is there looking over their shoulder, their "hard decisions" amount to torturing/murdering a bunch of people for projects that maybe might lead to some experimental technology that might be useful.



Cerberus: committing mass slaughter for "maybes" and "mights" since stardate 21-maybe-80-something.

[Zulu_DFA]

Nightwriter wrote...

Cerberus hasn't made any kind of hard decisions that deserve any kind of glory. Unless Shepard is there looking over their shoulder, their "hard decisions" amount to torturing/murdering a bunch of people for projects that maybe might lead to some experimental technology that might be useful.

Cerberus: committing mass slaughter for "maybes" and "mights" since stardate 21-maybe-80-something.

You've missed my point. It's about the scale. The Council exterminated 1 species completely and 1 nearly. And they call Cerberus "xenophobic", my ass!

[Nightwriter]

It's completely different. The rachni were about to destroy the galaxy. The krogan were about to conquer all of Council space. These are the kinds of motivators that make nasty actions necessary, not the vague possibility of achieving useful experimental technology to achieve power for personal gain.

Modifié par Nightwriter, 01 septembre 2010 - 10:34 .

[Asheer_Khan]

I don't known why but i have this weird feeling that perhaps when comes to Morning War events there is something hidden under political carpet but what could sheed completely different light at whole Council stance toward Quarians... but like i say this is only my personal feelings which are propably nothing more as shadows on the wall... not to mention that this thread is not a proper place for such deliberations.

[Zulu_DFA]

Nightwriter wrote...

It's completely different. The rachni were about to destroy the galaxy. The krogan were about to conquer all of Council space. These are the kinds of motivators that make nasty actions necessary, not the vague possibility of achieving useful experimental technology to achieve power for personal gain.

Propaganda. The Council won, so the Rachni and Krogans were bad.

And, it's the vague possibility of achieving useful experimental technology to achieve power for personal gain, that made our species who we are: the masters of our own fate. For better or for worse, but it's not going to change.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 01 septembre 2010 - 10:43 .

[Nightwriter]

Propaganda? It's hardly propaganda that the rachni were about to destroy the whole galaxy, the rachni queen as much as admits her ancestors did this. And it's silly to think the Council would even need propaganda.

And it's the continuing realization that we are wrong, and the strive to correct our wrongs, that makes our species who we are: seekers and travelers on the path of discovery and self-betterment, ever struggling to become more than our mistakes. Hurting others for personal gain has always been. It has also always been wrong. It will always be wrong. The fact that it is also ancient makes it an ancient wrong, of which there are many.

[Zulu_DFA]

Nightwriter wrote...

rachni were about to destroy the whole galaxy

This is irrelevant. It was the Council that destroyed the Rachni. Kudos, Council. What have Cerberus destroyed yet?

Nightwriter wrote...
seekers and travelers on the path of discovery and self-betterment, ever struggling to become more than our mistakes.

In other words: masters of our own fate. Key word: "masters".